This invention relates to court reporting systems whereby the testimony of individuals is recorded and, more particularly, to a court reporting system for providing a simultaneous written and video record under the control of a single court reporter comprising, a court reporter's stenographic recording input device having a keyboard for accepting phonetic keystroke combination manual inputs from the court reporter and for providing a corresponding signal reflecting keystroke combinations input by the court reporter at an output thereof; system clock means for providing a current time and date signal at an output thereof; stroke record memory means for receiving and storing a sequence of the signal reflecting keystroke combinations input by the court reporter; stroke table means for defining a plurality of keystroke combinations not employed for phonetic representations as control strokes; video camera means for viewing a scene and providing a video signal reflecting the scene at an output thereof; microphone means for providing an audio signal reflecting verbal testimony at an output thereof; recorder means connected to the outputs of the video camera means and the microphone means for producing a recording of the video and audio signals reflecting testimony in progress; and, control means operably connected to the outputs of the court reporter's stenographic recording input device, the system clock means, the video camera means, and the microphone means and the stroke table means and the recorder means and the stroke record memory means for separating keystroke combinations input by the court reporter into phonetic keystrokes and control keystrokes, for recording the phonetic keystrokes in the stroke record memory means, for periodically obtaining the current time and date signal from the system clock means and appending it to the recording of the video and audio signals and the sequence of the signal reflecting keystroke combinations stored in the stroke record memory means.
The providing of an accurate record of testimony of witnesses in depositions, court proceedings, and the like, is a long felt problem. At first, and for a long time, court reporters who were proficient in the taking and transcribing of shorthand notes attempted to record the proceedings to the best of their ability. As anyone who has had the opportunity to be involved with the process knows, manual recording and transcription of a multi-party proceedings is stressful and difficult for the court reporter. The reporter is required to record, by means of a series of drawn symbols or "strokes", the phonetic representation of what is heard and the source thereof. Mumbling, nodding or shaking of the head in lieu of speech, talking at high rates of speed, and talking by more than one individual at a time makes the job more difficult and, in many instances, impossible. Where the written record is inaccurate, there is no way to correct it. If a key point of law or fact occurs at that point in the proceedings, major consequences may follow from the ability to prove what, in fact, happened at the time from the certified transcript provided by the court reporter.
A major step forward in assistance to court reporters came some time back with the invention and introduction of the stenographic machine 10 of FIG. 1. The machine 10 has a series of buttons 12 which, when pushed in combination, produce mechanically generated strokes 16 on a paper tape 14. Like their written counterpart, the strokes 16 are used to indicate a phonetic representation of what is heard and the source thereof. Working with a stenographic machine 10, a court reporter could produce a more consistent stroke record of the testimony. This made it easier to avoid mistakes since a wiggle or bend in the written record could change the phonetic representation. Likewise, when and if necessary, others could transcribe the record from a stenographic machine 10 whereas the written record of each court reporter tended to be individualized to the point that in some cases where the original reporter had died without transcribing the notes, it was impossible for another reporter to do the job. Other than that, the stenographic machine 10 did nothing to change the problems of court reporting. Mumbling, nodding or shaking of the head in lieu of speech, talking at high rates of speed, and talking by more than one individual at a time still made the job more difficult and, in many instances, impossible.
More recently, with the general availability of computers for personal use, computer power has been added to the field of court reporting. At first, as shown in FIG. 2, the stenographic machine 10 was connected to a tape recorder 18 whereby the strokes 16 were simultaneously printed on the paper tape 14 and recorded on a magnetic tape 20. The magnetic tape 20 was then taken to a tape reader 22 connected to a computer 24 where the stroke record on the tape 20 was read into the computer 24. Since the strokes, i.e. the combinations of buttons 12 depressed simultaneously and in sequence, are virtually standardized, the computer 24 is able to generate a rough draft 26 of the transcription in word processing format for later editing by the court reporter. At present, in many cases such as in courthouse environments, the recorder 18 and reader 22 are replaced by a direct connection between the stenographic machine 10 and the computer 24 such that the rough draft 26 is produced on a real-time basis. This is a real boon in those instances where the court reporter is required to produce "dailys", i.e. a written record of the day's testimony at the end of each day. Note, however, that the problems of mumbling, nodding or shaking of the head in lieu of speech, talking at high rates of speed, and talking by more than one individual at a time still exist in this "high tech" system.
Attempts at solving these latter problems have been attempted in the prior art. Thus, as depicted in FIG. 4, many court reporters have employed a voice tape recorder 28 simultaneously with their stenographic machine 10. If in doubt when transcribing the record on the paper tape 14, the reporter can play the recorded voice record from the recorder 28 in an attempt to clarify the phonetic record. This can prove difficult and time consuming since there is no correlation between the paper tape 14 and the voice recording, and testimony can go on for hours. Moreover, the court reporter can have problems trying to operate the voice tape recorder 28 simultaneously with the stenographic machine 10. Typical cassettes as employed in the recorders 28 only have a thirty minute average capacity. Thus, the court reporter may be forced to deal with an end-of-tape situation right in the middle of critical testimony.
A very recent introduction into the field of court reporting is the videotaping of the testimony in the manner depicted in FIG. 5. This, of course, not only provides a supplemental voice record of the testimony but a visual record as well whereby nodding or shaking of the head, hand gestures, etc. in lieu of speech, as well as the demeanor of the witness, can be ascertained at a later time. As presently implemented, two individuals are involved -- the court reporter operating the stenographic machine 10 and a video operator operating the video camera 30 and video cassette recorder (VCR) 32. This arrangement is unfortunate to say the least. Of necessity in such situations, there can be only a minimum of, cooperation or interaction between the court reporter and the video operator. While the court reporter is responsible for producing the certified written record, the video operator is the more visible and, therefore, often controls the process by default. Since the two individuals typically work for different entities, the voice/video record made at the time is not available for the court reporter for verification purposes in producing the written transcription. More likely, like the "instant replay" in sports, it is employed to discredit a best effort under the circumstances. Moreover, since two individuals are required and video operators demand high pay for their efforts, the use of video recording is often rejected on a cost-to-client basis and, where used, can cause hard feelings on the part of the lower-paid, harder-working court reporter who is in a high stress position and responsible for the outcome.
To date and in general, nothing has been done about the problems of testimony at high rates of speed and talking by more than one individual at a time. Unless one of the attorneys involved and interested in preserving the record notes the problem and halts the testimony for the benefit of the court reporter, the court reporter generally tries to keep up as best possible until it is beyond the individual's capacity. By the time the court reporter indicates a problem, however, valuable testimony may have been lost or mis-recorded.
Wherefore, it is an object of the present invention to provide a combined mechanical and video court reporting system under the complete control of a single court reporter.
It is a further object of the present invention to provide a combined mechanical and video court reporting system wherein the mechanical and video records are correlated for ease of verification during editing.
It is yet another object of the present invention to provide a combined mechanical and video court reporting system wherein the mechanical and video records are totally controlled from the court reporter's stenographic machine.
It is still another object of the present invention to provide a combined mechanical and video court reporting system wherein the system monitors for conditions that affect the court reporter's ability to make an accurate record of the proceedings and impartially alerts the participants when conditions exceed that ability.
Other objects and benefits of the present invention will become apparent from the description which follows hereinafter when taken in combination with the drawing figures which accompany it.